Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2)

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Nov 14, 2016, 15:31 UTC
Message-ID: <0c39be16-76f8-0800-41a2-b7b1dccdd652@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611121106110.3746@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 12.11.2016 11:08:

Show 22 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> No tests or documentation updates yet, and I'm not sure whether
>>>> --follow-symlinks in other modes than --no-index should be supported, ignored
>>>> (as it is now) or cause an error, but I'm leaning towards the third option.
>>>
>>> My knee-jerk reaction is:
>>>
>>>  * The --no-index mode should default to your --follow-symlinks
>>>    behaviour, without any option to turn it on or off.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. We shouldn't have to specify this for no-index.
> 
> Ummm. *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the
> --index version as possible. For example when comparing directories
> containing symlinks. You seem intent on breaking this scenario.

*My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the --index-version as possible, regarding formatting etc., and to be a good substitute for ordinary diff. The proposed patch achieves exactly that - why should a *file* argument (which is not a pathspec in --no-index mode) not be treated in the same way in which every other command treats a file argument? The patch un-breaks the most natural expectation.

Michael